Saturday, February 9, 2019

Light-speed, Convention, and Creation


In recent years the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention cosmology of Dr. Jason Lisle has become more popular among creationists. At the 2018 International Conference on Creationism T.G. Tenev, J. Baumgardner, and M.F. Horstemeyer presented a model that was very similar. Dr. John Hartnett seems to have abandoned has own earlier Carmeli-based cosmology, and has posted a number of articles promoting the ASC as the current best solution to the distant-starlight problem (i.e., how we can see distant stars if they were created recently).

How feasible is the ASC model?

1. The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention
In Special Relativity, space, time, and motion are all relative to the observer, and not absolute. Hence one cannot synchronize distant clocks in an objective, absolute manner satisfying all observers.

Consequently, the one-way speed of light from observer A to observer B can't be measured directly, since this requires two synchronized clocks.  We can measure the speed of light only via a two-way average speed in two opposite directions (e.g., over the return path A-B-A), which relies on only one clock. 

In Special Relativity it is usually assumed that the speed of light is isotropic (i.e., the same in all directions). But this is just a convention. One could explain all the observed relativistic effects just as well by taking the speed of light to be anisotropic (i.e., direction-dependent), provided the average two-way speed is c (c is about 300,000 km/sec).

On such grounds Dr. Lisle (2010) upholds the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (hereafter denoted ASC) that the speed of light is infinitely fast when moving towards the earth, and c/2 when moving away from the earth, with a two-way average of c.  This solves the distant-starlight problem, since light from distant galaxies arrives at the earth virtually instantaneously. We thus see the galaxies as they now are.

2. Do We Need the ASC?
According to Lisle stars and galaxies were created in mature form 6000 years ago, pretty much the same as now observed.

One might well ask, if mature creation is needed anyway, why not simply postulate the mature creation of the entire celestial universe? Then there is no need of the ASC.

But this entails that the light we observe from distant stars was created “in transit”, and never actually originated from those stars. Then the apparent history (e.g., supernova explosions) conveyed by such light never really happened. This, Dr. Lisle objects, undermines the reliability of our senses, and makes God deceptive.

Yet,
Lisle’s more limited mature creation seems vulnerable to a similar charge of deception. For example, galaxies seem to exhibit evidence of past collisions, supernova explosions, huge jets of matter and radiation, etc.

However, one might deny that mature creation really involves divine deception (see my post Would God Deceive Us?). Or one might hold that mature creation need not be instantaneous, but could involve (miraculous and accelerated) process (see my post Rapidly Matured Creation), enabling the distant starlight we see to have actually originated from their stars on Day 4. 

Either approach makes Dr. Lisle’s ASC solution redundant.

3. Does Light Have a One-way Speed?
Are we to believe that light really travels infinitely fast towards the earth? That would be a remarkable hypothesis, seemingly highly implausible, but nevertheless frustratingly difficult to disprove.

But that isn't what the ASC affirms. On the contrary, Dr. Lisle contends that the one-way speed of light is not a property of the universe. He writes:
Those unfamiliar with Relativistic physics are deeply inclined to believe in absolute time and space. And therefore it will seem intuitive to them that the one-way speed of light should be an objective, invariant, and measurable quantity. But the universe is not constructed that way...God has constructed the universe is such a way that length, duration, and synchronization are relative to a given observer. Our inability to measure the one-way speed of light is not due to a lack of creativity on our part...Rather it is due to the way God has constructed spacetime. (Lisle 2010, p.203)
We could therefore choose the speed of incoming light to be anywhere between c/2 and infinity, but our choice is merely a human convention, like choosing to measure lengths in meters or yards. Physically it makes no difference.

As a convention, the ASC is thus physically equivalent to Einstein’s isotropic convention. Hence, Lisle’s creation model is physically equivalent to God creating the universe 14 billion years ago, starting at the furthest galaxies, and then creating inwards towards the earth, so that the first light from all galaxies reaches the earth simultaneously on Day 4, 6000 years ago.

Yet, if the one-way speed of light is not a property of the universe, it is not even physically meaningful to ask how long it took starlight to travel to the earth. Therefore Dr. Lisle’s proposal is not so much a solution to the distant-starlight problem but more a dismissal of the question as physically meaningless.

4. Relativity: Einstein versus Lorentz
In postulating that the one-way speed of light is not a physical property Dr. Lisle follows Einstein’s rather positivistic interpretation of Special Relativity that limits reality to what humans can observe.

Einstein held that Special Relativity led to a four-dimensional “block universe” view of space-time in which past, present, and future are equally real, and where the flow of time is just an illusion. This is known also as static time, eternalism, or the B-theory of time.

This clashes with the common-sense notion of time as dynamic, where only the present really exists, the past has existed, and the future does not yet exist. This is known also as presentism, or the A-theory of time. Presentism entails that there exists a universal “now”, corresponding to the state of the universe that exists at each instant. This in turn presupposes absolute time, absolute space, and absolute simultaneity.

We can, in fact, interpret Special Relativity in such absolute terms. The Lorentzian view of relativity (named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz) holds there exists a universal frame of reference, with respect to which light travels at speed c in any direction. For any observer moving with respect to this frame, lengths will contract and clocks will slow down, so that the speed of light is always measured to be c, but space and time itself are not distorted as in Special Relativity. [See, for example, the book "Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity" (2008), edited by William Craig & Quentin Smith].

Surely, for God, who is omnipresent and omniscient, there must be such a universal “now” for the universe at each instant of time. Such a “God’s view” of things would define absolute time, space, motion, and simultaneity.

It seems incoherent to think that an omniscient God, Creator of the entire universe, could not know how long it takes starlight to reach the Earth--no matter how unknowable that may be to us mere mortals.

On such grounds Dr. William Craig contends that the Lorentzian approach to relativity is more consistent with theism.

Lorentzian Relativity is empirically equivalent to Special Relativity, but it takes the one-way speed of light to be physically meaningful, and have speed c, quashing Lisle's solution to the distant-starlight problem.

5. The ASC and the Bible
If it is not physically meaningful to ask how long it took light from a celestial event to reach us, such events can be timed only by when we actually see them. Consider, for example, what Dr. Hartnett writes about sunlight:
Based on the distance to the sun and the canonical speed of light, c, the light travel time from the sun to Earth is about 8.3 minutes. But, and here’s the problem, it has been suggested that light from the core of the sun takes about 170,000 years to reach the surface. This is because gamma photons, generated in the thermonuclear fusion reaction at the sun centre, undergo a random walk as they are absorbed and re-emitted by nuclei on their way to the surface...
There is only one biblical creationist cosmogony that I know which can explain it, and it does it easily. It is Jason Lisle’s ASC model. That ASC model says that the physics of Einstein allows us to time events as in the Days of Creation, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. And we time those events by when an Earth observer could see the events happening.2 Thus when the light from the sun first arrived at the Earth it was Day 4. It does not matter, it is even irrelevant, how long the light took to travel... 
This is the language of the Bible. Events occur when they are observed. The sun was first seen by Earth observers on Day 4 and that defines when the sun was created. That event occurred 3 days after God created the Earth on Day 1 about 6 thousand years ago.
Note that the random walk involves two-way light-speeds, so that the 170,000 year time-span applies even using the ASC. Thus the ASC seems to concord with the notion of a young earth in an old universe.

Here Dr. Hartnett considers the ASC as primarily a clock convention that dates an astronomical event to when it is observed at the earth, rather than when it actually occurred. In this view, Genesis 1 uses phenomenal language that equates the creation date of the Sun to when it was first observed by an observer an earth.

One difficulty with the phenomenal language view is that Gen.1 is in fact written from God's perspective. We are told, "God made the two great lights...and the stars...and set them in the expanse...And God saw that it was good" (Gen.1:16-18). Since God is omniscient and omnipresent, the events recorded in Gen.1 should refer to actual facts, rather than mere human appearances. 

Moreover, the Sun and stars are placed in the expanse, which was created only on Day 2. So there is no place where celestial objects could exist before Day 2. Further, if the stars only became visible on earth on Day 4, why does Gen.1:16 not use the same verb "appear" that was used of the dry land on Day 3? Finally, Ex.20:11 clearly states that God made everything in heaven and earth in 6 days.

Dr. Lisle contends that the Bible uses the ASC, since the stars became visible on Earth nearly instantaneously after their creation, on that very same day. However, the rapid visibility of the stars is explained equally well by other theories, such as a rapidly matured creation.

Hence, the Biblical evidence is better explained by some form of mature creature than by the ASC.

Conclusion
In sum, it seems to me that the ASC model is not a viable solution to the distant-starlight problem. First, it is unnecessary since the ASC  model needs mature creation, and the notion of a rapidly matured creation already solves the problem. Second, it doesn't really solve the problem, but merely dismisses it as physically meaningless. Third, it relies on a positivist interpretation of Special Relativity, whereas the empirically equivalent Lorentzian Relativity accords better with theism. Finally, it leads to a phenomenal interpretation of Gen.1 that contradicts the plain reading of the Biblical text.
*****







27 comments:

  1. Dr. Byl, many thanks for this. You make several good points I had not considered. You already know that I am not a fan of ASC. I will add a link just below here that you are welcome to delete if you wish where I have been arguing to demonstrate the internal failures of Lisle's ASC paradigm. If people go out to the link, I want them to know that I am absolutely *not* an evolutionist, and that I repudiate biological evolution and consider it blasphemy. I only chose that particular venue because I had no other means to make my ideas public. (Also, you know I believe we are only 6000 years removed from Creation and that the creation of the universe was accelerated.)
    Again, thank you so much, and you can bet that I will be re-reading your points a number of times and testing them against the physics I know.
    Question: Near the end of your post you said, "but it takes the one-way speed of light to be physically meaningful...." Did you mean to say "It takes the two-way speed of light?" That is where true physical empirical meaning derives.
    I may have more comments later as I soak all this in.
    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failure-of-jason-lisles-asc-paradigm/4175/22

    ReplyDelete
  2. My error. I now understand that you are saying Lorentzian Relativity assumes [even] the one-way speed of light to be c (as opposed to the conventional view that its value can be arbitrary). And I agree that this better accords with God's absolute perspective in that he, without uncertainty, knew full-well how long it took light from distant galaxies to reach the earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Randy

      Thanks for your comments, and the link to another discussion on the ASC.

      Yes, my point is that in Lorentzian Relativity the speed of light has a definite value c, with respect to the background space (or ether). Lisle, in contrast, seems to take the one-way speed of light as not merely epistemologically unkown, but as ontologically non-existent.

      Delete
  3. Interesting material.

    Either time and space are constant for all frames of reference (observers) or the speed of light is constant for all frames of reference. It can't be both. (The only other alternative is that none of them are constant and there is some other undetectable factor. That would defeat any kind of scientific discovery, so we don't like to think about that.)

    As far as the A-theory and B-theory of time, I've come to find both of those to be unsatisfying theories. Theologically, God created "in the beginning", and gave us a testable universe with predictable cause-effect relationships which would indicate an A-theory of time. However, he also sustains his creation, even such as to interrupt testable cause-effect relationships so as to produce signs and wonders. That would indicate a B-theory of time. From this standpoint, I think we have features of both A and B theories in play. From a physical standpoint, if the speed of light is constant and time is not, then the passage of time varies from one frame of reference to another and our macroscopic experience of the passage of time is a homogenization of extreme quantum temporal fluctuations. This would seem to make the philosophical discussion of the A and B theories a bit simplistic. By the way, it also throws a wrench into distant light extrapolations. We only have local observations available to us and temporal testing of electromagnetic radiation over any significant distance is laden with doubt. You have to make key, untestable assumptions to generate any kind of conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jim

      Thanks for your comments.

      In Lorentzian Relativity time and space are absolute, as determined by the preferred reference frame (i.e., the ether). For moving observers, time and space remain undistorted, but clocks slow down and measuring rods shrink in the direction of motion. The light travels past the moving observer at a speed different from c, but he measures it to be c due to his distorted clock and rod. If the observer knows his absolute speed then he can adjust his clock and rod accordingly, so as to determine his absolute time and position.

      It seems to me that God sustaining creation at each instance, and causing miracles, are both consistent with a dynamic, A-theory time. I would consider God's plan for the universe to be an example of the B-theory, static time, since here past, present, and future all form one whole; whereas the actual historical unfolding of God's plan is an example of dynamic, A-theory time, since here time flows from the past to the future, through an ever-moving present. Much like considering the entire reel of a movie as static, B-theory time, but actually watching the movie frame-by-frame an example of dynamic, A-theory time.

      Delete
  4. Dr. Byl, you wrote:

    “Here Dr. Hartnett considers the ASC as primarily a clock convention that dates an astronomical event to when it is observed at the earth, rather than when it actually occurred. In this view, Genesis 1 uses phenomenal language that equates the creation date of the Sun to when it was first observed by an observer an earth.”

    If only we could get ASC’ers to admit phenomenological language! I would walk away and leave the whole idea alone, because language of phenomenology is exactly as you stated:

    “Thus the ASC seems to concord with the notion of a young earth in an old universe.”

    But they won’t admit to an old universe. When you take a deeper dive into Lisle’s ASC model it becomes clear that he intends to defend a truly young universe, only moments old at its creation, with distant starlight already touching Earth. Most disconcerting is that he thinks he is allowed this privilege based entirely on an arbitrary one-way speed of light.

    Questions: Is it your understanding of Lisle’s paradigm that ASC’ers have no choice but to concede language of phenomenology? If yes, why?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Randy

    Supporters of ASC may well differ in how they interpret it. My comment regarding phenomenology referred specifically to Dr. Hartnett's post on sun-light.

    A supporter of ASC could avoid phenomenology by affirming that the one-way speed of light IS physically meaningful, and that it does in fact travel infinitely fast towards the earth. This entails a geocentric absolute space, and absolute time, and would have to draw upon non-empirical, revelational evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No argument from me. Your statement is intrepid. I would like to hear reactions from ASC adherents.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dr. Byl:
    I think there are two important things that come out of Lisle's proposal: that c is not a hard fact that one must take into account (he proposes a different idea), and as is presupposed by the "light travel problem"; and second, that even with this given a literal fourth day of creation is not an impossible interpretation.

    God is God over all, so that everything is subject to His will. And He may do as He pleases, as seems good to Him. This part has not come into the equation: this is the key part in being able to take the Genesis account literally.

    Even time and space are created, and therefore have a contingent factor in them. I would assume, then, that man would not find an absolute in either time or space. That this contingent factor is missing from Lisle's proposal is, to me, its weakness.

    It is interesting that the RMC recognizes this aspect of time and space, that all it means to do is demonstrate an openness to fiat creation, and not attempt to explain time, space, or the created world in a closed scientific definition. This is the compelling part of the idea for me.


    JohnV

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here you quote Lisle and subtly expose his bias:

    “Those unfamiliar with Relativistic physics are deeply inclined to believe in absolute time and space. But the universe is not constructed that way....”

    How does he know? What inside track on God’s design does Lisle possess that the rest of us don’t?

    Your argument for absolute time and space – especially in a theistic framework – is nothing short of “…quashing Lisle's solution to the distant-starlight problem.” As a theist himself, Lisle has absolutely no right in heaven or earth to rule out your or Dr. Craig’s argument. Period.

    (Forgive my emotive response)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr. Byl, I don't want to miss your point here when you say

    "Therefore Dr. Lisle’s proposal is not so much a solution to the distant-starlight problem but more a dismissal of the question as physically meaningless."

    The reason I ask is because Hartnett (and Lisle) actually claim the basically the same. Here is Hartnett:

    “Therefore, there is no light travel-time problem.” (from his blog, "ASC Cosmologies Converge," etc)

    They appear to have moved away from talk of the ASC as a "solution" more to talk of the 'non-existence' of the problem - which seems to agree with your "dismissal" term.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My two cents:

    All that needs to be demonstrated is that a literal Genesis account regarding the fourth day is not impossible. We do not have to be able to explain it, much less prove it; we just need to be able to believe it. And RMC does this: a literal reading is a credible reading.

    "The light travel problem" remains valid even if Dr. Lisle's ASC is a credible proposal; it just shifts the problem away from the light source problem:

    The light would have been instant at infinite speed; but observations of a supernova show that the supernova has regular progressions of effects, and not instantaneous effects, as Dr. Lisle's proposal would require. That is, a supernova that is observed in our times, and indicating an old age, would have a certain age indicated by how far it has progressed in effects resulting from it. Thus, one supernova would have been created 150,000 years in apparent age, and another maybe 300,000 years in apparent age; but both created on the same day.


    There remains a problem then. More to the point: it has created another problem.


    JohnV

    JohnV

    ReplyDelete
  11. FYI, Dr Hartnett has officially abandoned his earlier model, see this below update to one of his posts:

    "Update Dec 2, 2018: I have now totally given up on my own Carmelian cosmology. I never found resolution to various internal problems it has."

    https://biblescienceforum.com/2015/03/09/synopsis-a-biblical-creationist-cosmogony/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. This is an interesting admission. Back in 2014, when I pointed out various problems with Hartnett's model, he was quite defensive, and asserted that these existed only in my imagination [See the comments on my post http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2011/04/deflating-cosmology.html].

      Delete
  12. Dr. Byl, I do not want your readers to miss where you go the distance to falsify Lisle’s claims.

    First, you lay down this plank: “…if the one-way speed of light is not a property of the universe, it is not even physically meaningful.”

    Then this one: “As a convention, the ASC is thus physically equivalent to Einstein’s isotropic convention.”

    And finally: “Lisle’s creation model is physically equivalent to God creating the universe 14 billion years ago.”

    The conclusion is inescapable. To bear any kind of physical meaning, Lisle’s universe must necessarily be old. Thus, your analysis has uncovered an integral failure of Lisle’s model to support his claim of a young universe.

    I wonder how long we will have to wait for the inevitable admission of failure from ASC proponents.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Randy S.
    Your comments, lead me to believe you're trying to push an agenda here, no? While I am grateful and thankful for 'all' the constructive criticism that happens between fellow creationist brothers in the Lord, especially in this area, I get the feeling you might have ulterior motives against Jason Lisle and his ASC. Why the push?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve, I can address that. Creationists have the most beautiful and elegant cosmology in all of recorded history - Genesis 1 & 2. Not to mention, it is the only true cosmology in existence! I am really starting more and more to like it just the way it was originally delivered by God to Adam.

    Concerning ASC, I might sound a little emotional because even though I have opposed if for a number of years, just last year I began to sound the alarm to CMI and others about its true nature. Most view it just as ‘another competing young universe model’. However, what I uncovered is not at all benign, but rather, insidious. There are real dangers if the creationist movement associates itself with the paradigm.

    I have already received positive responses from high level creationists. Some had already distanced themselves from the ASC model. Others are now doing so. I have warned Lisle and Hartnett, but naturally with their affinity toward the model, they will be the last holdouts.

    Thanks for asking.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Randy,
    Thanks for the explanation. I can see that you have undergone a process towards the creationist position as laid out in Genesis. I am thankful to God for that. I don't know where you started, but your presence here on Dr. Byl's blog would indicate a willingness and desire to hear us out and interact with us. I commend you in this.

    I still feel, and forgive me if I am wrong, that in your comments and theses, there are some unstated conclusions you are hedging on, regarding the age of the universe. Is this a fair assessment?

    Much like Hugh Ross and his followers who hold to an old universe brought about through the Big Bang, but no theistic evolution; Christ creating His biological life on this planet in close approximation to what is seen in the geologic column, which in the end is still a compromise, and theologically aberrant, are you leaning in that direction?

    I realize in an earlier comment in this thread, you stated, "If people go out to the link, I want them to know that I am absolutely *not* an evolutionist, and that I repudiate biological evolution and consider it blasphemy. I only chose that particular venue because I had no other means to make my ideas public. (Also, you know I believe we are only 6000 years removed from Creation and that the creation of the universe was accelerated)", so I am a bit puzzled by your language. It seems to be hedging.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve, I have a rule for my scientific thought that I try to follow. Paul warned us not to go beyond what it written. So, if I tether my thoughts to that pillar, I am safe, though I do find that I still have a little latitude for some scientific expression. I don’t think God minds if we are thinkers so long as we know when to reign it in and what boundaries we must obey.

    I admire Hugh Ross’ stance against evolution. I am convinced that God has put that in his heart as a boundary. But he goes too far in that he believes the six days of creation are long periods of time. That being said, I am unable to deny those who believe in ‘fiat creation’ (you will have to google that) their right to do so, since when you get right down to it, they still believe God created in six literal 24-hour days, each day followed by a long parenthetical unfolding of his command. They argue that God really only ‘worked’ for six days, making the work week he handed us in Exodus a sort of ‘Readers Digest’ version of his ‘work week’. Perhaps you can think of a rebuttal of their beliefs?

    Is the universe old? Only if the Genesis story can remain pure. How? Well, Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett thought that they had achieved an old universe and a young earth and kept the Genesis account intact. I think they failed in the construction of their models, but they may have still succeeded in keeping Genesis pure.

    There may be ways around an old universe. How about Barry Setterfield? If the speed of light really was faster in the past, then the universe need not be old to achieve its look today. How about Danny Faulkner? His idea is pure, but I still have not found a way to make it work. He doesn’t supply any physical mechanism to test his model. When I recently tried to solicit more information from him, he was silent. How about Jason Lisle? Unfortunately, it can be definitively demonstrated that his idea fails. How about the latest ASC models? I believe they may too be in peril because of their links to Lisle’s paradigm. How about John Byl? Like Faulkner, he claims a miracle, but unlike Faulkner, he gives us something physical to test his idea – namely, that the spacetime metric changes incrementally with increasing distance from a universe center such that processes are accelerated in step with distance from that center.

    But many do not understand the very big problem that creationists face. The creationist ‘light-travel-time problem’ always seems to steal the spotlight, but are you aware that just like we need an accelerated creation of the universe, we need accelerated decay of radio isotopes in our very planet? The RATE group concluded that “billions of years’ worth of radioactive decay” was indeed evident in the planet material. The search by persons such as Andrew Snelling to find an accelerated process to explain that conclusion is ongoing. For that reason, when a popular creationist PhD recently told me he was working on a new cosmology, I reminded him not to overlook our planet Earth! – and that if a cosmology can quickly age the universe, why not try and include our planet as well?

    Now, I conclude with this thought. I am presently experiencing a personal reformation in my creationist thought such that the purity of Genesis 1 & 2 as originally handed down by God to Adam reigns – and will always reign – supreme. In moments of solitude and peace and renunciation of the world, I truly wish we could somehow just get happy with what God gave us. I know you feel the same. We are in a modern-day struggle that prior generations did not have to face, aren’t we.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Randy.

      Regarding my proposal, let me clarify that I am NOT suggesting any physical test. I merely suggested that, if one were concerned with too much energy received at the earth on Day 4, one could posit that processes were accelerated (on Day 4) at distance-dependent rates. Or one could simply hold that normal energy laws did not hold during the miraculous creation. Either way, we end up with exactly the universe we now see, with no possible empirical falsification—or proof.

      As to the notion that "God created in 6 literal 24-hour days, each day followed by a long parenthetical unfolding of his command", I don't see this as exegetically possible or scientifically helpful. God clearly worked directly to create Adam & Eve, so they presumably were created on the actual 6th working day. But dinosaurs were presumably also created on that same literal day, which places the creation of humans and dinosaurs at the same time, some 6000 years ago.

      This leaves us with the same dating problems for fossils as the traditional 6 literal day creation. Of course, the existence of soft-tissue in dinosaur fossils already clashes with dates from radioactive processes.

      Delete
  17. Randy,
    Thanks for your reply. An old universe only if the Genesis 'story' can remain pure. Huh? If you're trying to run a covert op, you've got my number.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dr. Byl,
    A recent article in the Journal of Creation (Vol. 33(1) 2019), by Dr. John Hartnett "New Cosmologies Converge on the ASC model--a review of two cosmology papers presented at the International Conference on Creationism in 2018" has me reflecting back on these discussions in this blog post.

    Perhaps Dr. Hartnett's review is a repeat/summary of what he's said in his blog posts since the conference, or perhaps it's new material. I haven't perused all of Dr. Hartnett's blog articles to know.

    It seems however, that the philosophical assumption of the universal 'now' prior to the 17th century by Newton and others, and the replacement of this philosophical assumption with the ESC after Einstein, we are now switching back as creationists to the older assumption of the universal 'now' as a philosophically valid method of understanding the text of God's revelation?

    I realize, Dr. Byl, you take exception to this as you have stated in your blog post and elsewhere, and I agree that a rapidly matured creation is the easiest understanding of the light-travel-time problem and honors the Biblical text.

    I wonder if you have seen this article in the Journal of Creation and whether it adds or detracts any information from your critique above?

    Randy, you said:
    "Now, I conclude with this thought. I am presently experiencing a personal reformation in my creationist thought such that the purity of Genesis 1 & 2 as originally handed down by God to Adam reigns – and will always reign – supreme. In moments of solitude and peace and renunciation of the world, I truly wish we could somehow just get happy with what God gave us. I know you feel the same. We are in a modern-day struggle that prior generations did not have to face, aren’t we."

    Yes, this is our battlefield today. Is the secular creation myth of an old universe-old earth the true nature of reality or is God's Word and account of a universe and earth in 6 days the true nature of reality. What will we believe? Any and all accommodation models all fail. The battle for the souls of men and women for Jesus Christ and eternity is pitted against the lies and deceit of Satan in this very important arena. While we as creationists wrestle with solutions to this light-travel-time problem and the energy dissipation of accelerated nuclear decay in the rocks, we must never forget that God wishes all to come to a knowledge of the truth; His Word is truth, and be His instruments in confronting people with the gospel on a continual basis; "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Steve

      Yes, Dr. Hartnett had already posted this article on his blog a few months ago as https://biblescienceforum.com/2018/11/13/new-cosmologies-converge-on-the-asc-model/
      So the latest Journal of Creation adds nothing new to this discussion.

      Delete
  19. Hi John,
    Would it be accurate to say that the B theory of time corresponds to God's sovereign, immutable, eternal plan for creation (He knows the end from the beginning--Isa 46:9-10--and works all things according to the purpose of His will-Eph 1:11), but that the A theory corresponds to human experience-(i.e. we can only experience "now" as we are on a one-way trip to the future and are connected to the past only by memory and historical records)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mitch

      Thanks for your comment. What you say is close to how I would differentiate between the two theories of time. But I refer you to my reply to the comment of Jim Pemberton. There I said,

      "I would consider God's plan for the universe to be an example of the B-theory, static time, since here past, present, and future all form one whole; whereas the actual historical unfolding of God's plan is an example of dynamic, A-theory time, since here time flows from the past to the future, through an ever-moving present. Much like considering the entire reel of a movie as static, B-theory time, but actually watching the movie frame-by-frame an example of dynamic, A-theory time."

      Delete
  20. Randy S.,

    In re-reading these comments, re-reading Dr. Byl's posts on RMC, re-reading Lisle and Hartnett's articles on the ASC, and thinking on these things, I wanted to inquire about something you said and wonder if you would flesh it out a bit if you're still checking-in here:

    You said in regards to the ASC:
    "Most view it just as ‘another competing young universe model’. However, what I uncovered is not at all benign, but rather, insidious. There are real dangers if the creationist movement associates itself with the paradigm."

    What have you discovered that classify as 'insidious', and what are the dangers to the creationist movement by association with it?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm going to think out loud here:

    There is no Creature, not even the cosmos as a whole, that constitutes the transcendent 'now'.

    Only God is that 'now'.

    All creatures are, therefore, relative, both to each other and to God.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome. However, I reserve the right to reject any comment, especially those that —
1. are rude, offensive, or non-edifying
2. are off topic
3. merely repeat points already made.

Please use your real name. If for some reason you must remain incognito, you may use a nickname if you first email me your real name.